Texas Supreme Court
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a ruling finding that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality “blew a deadline under the Public Information Act,” remanding the open records case for further proceedings.
On July 1, 2019, TCEQ received a written request from Sierra Club, an environmental organization, seeking records relating to the “Ethylene Oxide Carcinogenic DoseResponse Assessment.”
The following day, the agency emailed the group back, seeking clarification on whether Sierra Cub sought confidential information, which would require an opinion from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Paxton
Within minutes, Sierra Club answered that it “would like to receive all responsive information that TCEQ may believe is confidential, but that must be released under the ... Public Information Act.”
Court records show TCEQ sent an opinion request dated July 17, 2019 to the Office of the Attorney General, but the OAG determined the request was two days late, as it was due within ten business days of receiving Sierra Club’s open records request.
In turn, TCEQ argued that July 5 wasn’t a business day and that the 10-day deadline didn’t begin until July 2 because of the email exchange. Nonetheless, the OAG declined to reconsider, leading TCEQ to sue the attorney general.
Sierra Club intervened and the OAG conceded that TCEQ had met the ten-business-day deadline. However, the district court granted summary judgment for Sierra Club, ordering TCEQ to produce 6,414 pages of documents. The decision was affirmed on appeal.
The Supreme Court found TCEQ’s “shot clock” didn’t start running until July 2 and that the evidence shows that its letter requesting an OAG opinion was deposited in the interagency mail on July 17.
“Because TCEQ won the first two games, we don’t need to decide whether July 5 was a business day — even if it was, that’d just mean TCEQ’s mailbox-rule submission came right on time,” the opinion states. “Because TCEQ didn’t blow the ten-business-day deadline, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Justices Busby and Lehrmann dissented, opining that the high court excused a state agency’s untimely attempt to withhold responsive information by reasoning that the agency reset its ten-business-day deadline by asking the requestor whether it was seeking confidential information.
Supreme Court case No. 23-0244
